News:

"There is a terrible desperation to the increasingly pathetic rationalizations from the climate denial camp. This comes as no surprise if you take the long view; every single undone paradigm in history has died kicking and screaming, and our current petroleum paradigm 🐉🦕🦖 is no different. The trick here is trying to figure out how we all make it to the new ⚡ paradigm without dying ☠️ right along with the old one, kicking, screaming or otherwise." - William Rivers Pitt

Your argument is based on the false premise that RENEWABLE ENERGY is BULLSHIT. I don't care whether you deny that day and night. You THINK RENEWBLE ENERGY DOESN'T EXIST. You think DIRTY ENERGY is IT, as far as energy. You think that Renewable Energy enthusiasts should just stop using ALL energy because that is the only "ethical" way to challenge the status quo.

From your point of view, it makes a kind of shrewd sense. All those greens should just LEAVE the energy discussions to REALISTS like YOU. Well, it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

Rockefeller pulled the same **** with gasoline over ethanol by funding Prohibition laws. AFTER Prohibition, the argument YOU just trotted out (Hey, don't use energy(gasoline) if you've got a complaint about refineries and pollution!) was trotted out. How **** convenient.

Fossil Fuel Corproations Game the **** out of the energy "playing" (that word again LOL!) field and then claim that's the "REAL WORLD" and we just have to "LIVE WITH IT" or stop being silly goose "hypocrites" using dirty energy.

It's NOT GOING TO WORK THIS TIME, PAL!

We NEVER needed fossil fuels. We DON'T need them now. Renewable Energy was and IS MUCH CHEAPER.

ANY defense of dirty energy is BULLSHIT and YOU KNOW IT.

But I realize that won't stop you from pulling out all your tired propaganda points so have a ball.

ALL your arguments ALWAYS AVOID discussion of the MASSIVE GOVERNMENT GIVEAWAYS that we-the-people have been cheated out of by the Fossil and Nuclear Fuel industries.

They were NEVER subsidies. That were ALWAYS BAIL OUTS because without them they would have never enjoyed an energy monopoly that they would subsequently and perversely twist 180 degrees out of phase and claim, LOL!, the triumph of free enterprise and the "cheapest" form of energy.

All that happy horseshit is going away, not because of prissy tree hugging environmentalists out to poop on your dirty energy party, but because you represent a MASSIVE FRAUD.

And, thanks to people that write about this Energy FRAUD, like me, Dirty Energy is going to go bye bye.

The ONLY GROUNDS for an argument that you have, which you NEVER BRING UP, for some reason, LOL!, is that a person claiming defense of the environment and Renewable Energy is a HYPOCRITE if he/she own STOCK in a Fossil Fuel PIG or Defense Contractor that Pushes them and nuclear energy. That is PROBABLY because you've got SEVERAL OF THEM in YOUR portfolio! :evil4:

I DO NOT OWN STOCK, PERIOD!

I will stop using electricity when the power is off, not a moment sooner. Every second I use it to call fossil nukes on their lies is WORTH IT for the biosphere. I can't say the same for you.

Published on Thursday, December 5, 2013 by Common Dreams From supporting Keystone XL to opposing home solar panels, ALEC planning assault on the environment

- Sarah Lazare, staff writer

The American Legislative Exchange Council's war on green protections is poised to expand over the next year, taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulations, and even solar panels installed in individual homes.

This is according to internal documents revealed Wednesday by The Guardian and supplemented by interviews that expose this corporate lobbying powerhouse's vast anti-green agenda.

The revelations come in the midst of a three-day ALEC policy summit in Washington, DC bringing together 800 legislative and corporate leaders from around the country.

In 2014, ALEC will push a series of measures aimed at preventing the federal government from curbing greenhouse gas emissions and blocking state efforts to expand wind and solar power, according to The Guardian's summary of the documents.

John Eick, the legislative analyst for ALEC's energy, environment and agriculture program, told The Guardian that ALEC will also advocate for increasing financial penalties for individual homeowners who would otherwise benefit from feed-in solar energy programs. Many sustainable energy advocates see state-level feed-in schemes—like the one that recently came under attack in Arizona—as one of the keys to a national transition to clean, renewable energy.

ALEC also notes that its resolution in support of the Keystone XL pipeline has "been introduced in at least seven states this year which has helped highlight state support for this project."

In 2013 alone, ALEC introduced at least 77 anti-green bills in 34 states, according to The Center for Media and Democracy.

As Connor Gibson, a research associate at Greenpeace, explained to CMD: "ALEC's long time role in denying the science and policy solutions to climate change is shifting into an evolving roadblock on state and federal clean energy incentives, a necessary part of global warming mitigation."

"ALEC's guise of 'free market environmentalism,'" Gibson continued, "is just a code word for its real mission in our states' legislatures: to allow dirty energy companies to pollute as much as they want, to attack incentives for clean energy competitors and to secure government handouts to oil, gas and coal interests. That's not a free market."

An excerpt from the documents, boasting of past accomplishments, can be seen below (at the link).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Surly,YEP. And catch this news. The "Bjorn Lomborg organization" issuing the ridiculous crap about developing countries needing "cheap" coal was THROWN OUT of Copenhagen. Do you know where it is NOW? WASHINGTON D.C. :evil4: We are the heart of fossil fuel DARKNESS.

Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish provocateur who loves to pick fights with the climate movement, argues in the New York Times this week that what people in developing nations — or as he called them, “the poor” — really want is cheap, dirty, fossil fuels to help them reach prosperity. Poor folks, he says, could get rich off of coal if the West would just get out the way.

It’s part of an ongoing conversation that has stymied international climate talks, about how wealthy countries have gotten rich on fossil fuels, and now want poor countries to help clean up the mess.

Lomborg uses South Africa as his test:

The last time the World Bank agreed to help finance construction of a coal-fired power plant, in South Africa in 2010, the United States abstained from a vote approving the deal. The Obama administration expressed concerns that the project would “produce significant greenhouse gas emissions.” But as South Africa’s finance minister, Pravin Gordhan, explained at the time in The Washington Post, “To sustain the growth rates we need to create jobs, we have no choice but to build new generating capacity — relying on what, for now, remains our most abundant and affordable energy source: coal.”

We’ll put aside the fact that the last time, or rather the first time the Dutch came up with a prosperity scheme for Africa it involved a vicious slave trade that put the continent on a path to poverty it’s yet to fully recover from.

Africans, not Lomborg, are the people to determine what Africans need.

And while Gordhan, speaking for finance, may have said his country needed coal in 2010, the following year during the COP 17 climate negotiations in Durban, faith leaders came together declaring that [PDF] “South Africa must stand with Africa — not big polluters.”

For their COP 17 statement they wrote:

For South Africa, true leadership on climate change and sustainability must mean abandoning nuclear energy and its continued use of coal, its insistence on claiming further carbon space, and its refusal to change unless it is paid to do so by the international community.It must turn away from supply and pricing models that privilege multinational corporations, must improve on its current paltry ambition of at most 20% renewable energy by 2030, and commit resources into developing renewable energy and promoting energy efficiency that will create new employment and new opportunities for all in Southern Africa.

They circulated a petition at the Durban conference calling for the same. Among the signers: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and Pravin Gordhan.In Gordhan’s 2013 budget speech, he didn’t mention coal once. But he did say:To ensure that South Africa produces fuel that is more environmentally friendly, support mechanisms for both biofuel production and the upgrade of oil refineries to cleaner fuel standards will be introduced.In addition, government continues to direct spending towards environmental programmes, such as installing solar water geysers, procuring renewable energy, low carbon public transport, cleaning up derelict mines, addressing acid mine drainage, supporting our national parks, and in particular, to saving our rhino population, who remain under threat.

We are also encouraging the private sector and smaller public entities to be creative and develop low-carbon projects through the Green Fund.

Perhaps knowing that South Africa wasn’t his best black friend on this issue, Lomborg included China as another example, noting how it moved almost 680 million people out of poverty by giving them access to coal-powered energy. “Yes, this has resulted in terrible air pollution and a huge increase in greenhouse gas emissions,” wrote Lomborg. “But it is a trade-off many developing countries would gratefully choose.”

Maybe they’d choose it, but “gratefully”? If they aren’t offered much other choice? I grew up with a lot of people who came up out of poverty by selling drugs. This led to a huge increase in incarcerations and poor health outcomes throughout the rest of their communities – not to mention shaving years off their own lives due to the threat of jail or getting killed. Yes, it’s a tradeoff, but they took it because they weren’t offered much else in terms of jobs and economic opportunities.

The tired “let them eat coal” argument that you should get rich or die from pollution trying is obsolete and borderline racist given you rarely hear it made for Europeans.

But Africans have determined that this is not an either-or thing.A conference held in October by the Climate for Development in Africa (ClimDev Africa Programme) concluded with a summary and recommendations document [PDF] that said, “There is no question of a choice between economic growth and environmental protection. The green economy is about achieving green growth while at the same time protecting our environment.” They recommended that, “Planners of development programmes and projects should include the valuation of Africa’s ecosystems as part of their economic evaluations.”

In other words, there is no trade-off. What Africans have been demanding is funding from the already-rich-from-coal countries for their own climate change adaptation, mitigation, and clean technology systems. Their economies have not been able to keep up with the hyper-industrialized western nations so they can’t afford this on their own. How they got that they way had a lot to do with those Dutch slave traders.

Today, Lomborg’s home country is one of the world leaders in renewable energy. I can imagine one of the African farmers who actually have to live with the worst of climate change’s impacts saying to him, “If this coal is so cheap and good, then why don’t you eat it?”

Brentin Mock is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist who writes regularly for Grist about environmental justice issues and the connections between environmental policy, race, and politics. Follow him on Twitter at @brentinmock.

Proper Perspective on Fossil Fuel "Subsidies" (bail outs of an UNPROFITABLE DIRTY FUEL INDUSTRY)Rockefeller (I'm a Capitalist BUT Competition is a sin!) is the FATHER of the Fossil Fuel Industry's SECRET MOTTO: Fossil Fuels are CHEAP because the POLITICIANS we buy GUARANTEE IT! The laws of thermodynamics and pollution effects are for Libral Commies! PROPAGANDA SMOKE SCREEN on the LEFT so we don't SEE the TRUTH on the RIGHT!

In 2005, 2.42 billion metric tons of oil were shipped by tanker. In 2006, 76.7% of this was crude oil, and the rest consisted of refined petroleum products. This amounted to 34.1% of all seaborne trade for the year. Combining the amount carried with the distance it was carried, oil tankers moved 11,705 billion metric-ton-miles of oil in 2005.

By comparison, in 1970 1.44 billion metric tons of oil were shipped by tanker. This amounted to 34.1% of all seaborne trade for that year. In terms of amount carried and distance carried, oil tankers moved 6,487 billion metric-ton-miles of oil in 1970.

The main loading ports in 2005 were located in Western Asia, Western Africa, North Africa, and the Caribbean, with 196.3, 196.3, 130.2 and 246.6 million metric tons of cargo loaded in these regions.

The main discharge ports were located in North America, Europe, and Japan with 537.7, 438.4, and 215.0 million metric tons of cargo discharged in these regions.

No big deal in cost or infrastructure, the fossil fuelers claim (never mind the yearly ocean pollution from spills AND normal operation...). Looky here, how CHEAP it is to move crude around! And please be charitable with their use of the word "efficiency" as if either pipelines or tankers WERE ENERGY GENERATING ENGINES!

Second only to pipelines in terms of efficiency, the average cost of oil transport by tanker amounts to only two or three United States cents per 1 US gallon (3.8 L).

That COST figure above is a GIANT, BOLD FACED LIE! Only through extremely creative accounting (accelerated depreciation, ignoring energy used to mine, refine and manufacture the tankers and pipes themselves and, OF COURSE, "cooperation" from finance capital for low interest, long term financing and oil loving national NON-regulations) can they come up with that "TWO to THREE cents per US gallon FICTION.

The world's largest supertanker was built in 1979 at the Oppama shipyard by Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd. as the Seawise Giant. This ship was built with a capacity of 564,763 DWT, a length overall of 458.45 metres (1,504.1 ft) and a draft of 24.611 metres (80.74 ft). She had 46 tanks, 31,541 square metres (339,500 sq ft) of deck, and at her full load draft, could not navigate the English Channel.The above is the 1979 GIANT polluting pig compared with SKYSCRAPERS. Please NOTE the capacity of 564,763 DWT.

The latest ones aren't quite that big but they are still REALLY BIG PIGS!

Hellespont Alhambra (now TI Asia), a ULCC TI class supertanker, which are the largest ocean-going oil tankers in the world

As of 2011, the world's two largest working supertankers are the TI class supertankers TI Europe and TI Oceania. These ships were built in 2002 and 2003 as the Hellespont Alhambra and Hellespont Tara for the Greek

Each of the sister ships has a capacity of over 441,500 DWT, a length overall of 380.0 metres (1,246.7 ft) and a cargo capacity of 3,166,353 barrels (503,409,900 l). They were the first ULCCs to be double-hulled. (agelbert note: They were SCHEDULED TO BE BUILT DOUBLE HULLED IN THE 1980S BUT Reagan STOPPED THAT SO THE POOR BABIES WOULDN'T SUFFER PROFIT REDUCTION! Thank you, REAGAN, for EXXON VALDEZ!)To differentiate them from smaller ULCCs, these ships are sometimes given the V-Plus size designation.

OIL TANKER DWT:1970-1980 8.0 million DWT1980-1990 8.7 million DWT1990-2000 20.8 million DWT In 2005, 475 new oil tankers were built, accounting for 30.7 million DWT.

The average size for these new tankers was 64,632 DWT. Nineteen of these were VLCC size, 19 were suezmax, 51 were aframax, and the rest were smaller designs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

This looks like an industry that IS EXPANDING, not contracting. This looks like an industry that will do everything it can to PREVENT a transition Renewable Energy (30.7 million DWT ).

Renewable Energy really IS cheap. That is why the fossil fuelers want to kill it. As MKing would say, it's not personal; it's just "business".

Unavoidable conclusions about oil tankers from people with a few neurons to rub together that aren't shills for the fossil fuel industry. 1) The oceans of the world would be much less polluted without them. If you don't agree, just google annual oil tanker spills and accidents for the last 50 years. This cost is IGNORED by the MKings of this world when they study cost/supply curves. Then there are the trains, the trucks, gasoline stations, the giant tank facilities all over the world, the refineries, etc. NONE OF THAT cost exists for Renewable Energy! And don't forget that coal is even WORSE!

2) They don't generate ANY energy, use enormous amounts of energy to build, including the metals and machinery mining, refining and manufacturing. YET, not ONE article from a fossil fueler mentions this when wailing and moaning about those "huge" energy costs to build wind turbines and solar panels!

3) They DO NOT last as long as solar panels or wind turbines, which, unlike oil tankers, can be nearly 100% recycled without pollution or high energy costs.

Quote

In 2005, the average age of oil tankers worldwide was 10 years. Of these, 31.6% were under 4 years old and 14.3% were over 20 years old.

Consequently, no rational accountant could claim that oil tankers are a prudent investment as a "cost effective business expense". Do you know how tankers are "recycled"? YEP! Using MORE energy and generating MORE pollution and health problems for the poor saps working in scrapping yards. Another COST that we-the-people PAY and big oil IGNORES. The fossil fuel industry is 100% WASTE BASED![/color][/size]

Now dear readers, do you expect ANY of these conspiracy theory FACTS will be discussed rationally by the fossil fuelers like MKing? Of course not. They know what they are defending is, in purely logical terms, not defendable.

So, they use ridicule, hyperbole, exaggeration, denial of facts, avoid apples to apples energy use comparisons like the plague and just generally wing it!

1. For anyone doubting the scale of the massive dead weight on the planet that the fossil fuel industry is, just add up all the pipes, tankers, drill rigs, refineries, gasoline stations, port facilities exclusively used for oil, natural gas and coal, trains, trucks, recycling in scrap yards, pollution and health costs, bought politicians and last but absolutely essential, the goon squad expenses needed to make fossil fuel "profits".

2. NOW, ADD that to the cost of making internal combustion engines and fossil fuel power plants.

3. Last step: COMPARISON WITH RENEWABLE ENERGYAdd NONE OF THE ABOVE to the cost of making wind turbines, solar panels and any other renewable energy technology you can think of.

GET IT?

I do. MKing does too. That's why he won't go there. The moment he becomes part of the reality based community, he has no argument.

Largest Power Company in U.S. Joins ALEC in Plot Against One State’s Solar Revolution

Greenpeace | January 22, 2014 11:06 am |

By David Pomerantz

The new hot spot for solar energy in the U.S. is North Carolina. The state was second in the nation in solar growth in 2013, behind only California.

In fact, if U.S. states were considered as countries, North Carolina would have been among the top 10 countries in the world for solar growth last year.

All of that solar growth, driven by policies like the state’s renewable energy portfolio law, has been great for the North Carolina economy, generating $1.7 billion in revenue for the state. At the end of 2012, 137 solar companies employed 1,400 people in North Carolina—a number that increased during solar’s record 2013 year.

But while North Carolina’s solar sector shines brighter, a cloud is approaching on the horizon that places all of the benefits of solar power at risk of disappearing: Duke Energy, the state’s monopoly utility and the largest power company in the country, is about to launch a major attack on solar energy.

On Jan. 7, Duke’s president of North Carolina operations, Paul Newton , fired the first shots of the war. Speaking in front of a joint energy committee of the state’s legislature, Newton attacked net metering, one of the key policies to North Carolina’s solar growth.

Net metering allows customers with rooftop solar panels to get credit for any extra electricity that they send back to the grid, like rollover minutes on a cell phone bill.

Newton argued that solar customers aren’t “paying their fair share” to Duke, and that his company would thus be forced to charge higher rates to all of its other customers in response.

Those allegations are false. A study conducted last year showed that the benefits of rooftop solar in North Carolina—even for customers who don’t have the panels—would outweigh any costs by 30 percent. That’s because as more homes and businesses go solar, Duke wouldn’t have to keep building expensive gas and coal plants and raising rates on its customers to finance them. Those rate benefits are aside from the job creation, climate and public health positives of solar power.But Duke’s shareholders profit by building those gas and coal plants, which is exactly why rooftop solar is in the crosshairs.

Duke’s key ally in its war on solar: ALEC

Duke isn’t the first utility in the country to attack net metering; utilities in California, Arizona and Colorado began similar campaigns in 2013, and others are forming battle plans now.

In December, The Guardian newspaper revealed that these power companies have been coordinating their efforts under the guise of the American Legislative Exchange Council, (ALEC), a group that lets corporations like Duke ghostwrite laws for right-wing state legislators.

Many utilities are ALEC members, and they have made it ALEC’s top priority to attack net metering laws around the country. Forty percent of North Carolina state lawmakers are ALEC members, and Duke will rely on them to do their bidding.

So far, Duke and ALEC’s communications strategy has been to stigmatize solar energy as being only for the wealthy.

Their argument is that we shouldn’t be letting rich families with solar panels get even richer on the backs of non-solar households.

It wouldn’t be surprising if early adopters of solar do have higher incomes, since buying the panels involves an upfront cost. But recent research shows that solar penetration is increasingly happening in middle class neighborhoods. In any case, if ALEC and utilities are so worried about the poor, they should be trying to give more solar access to working and middle class communities, since it will help them save money, not take away their chance to go solar by attacking policies like net metering.The idea that the nation’s power companies, which have raised rates on customers to pad corporate profits and sited coal plants in the nation’s poorest communities for decades, suddenly want to act as champions for social justice doesn’t pass the smell test.

Duke will eventually learn to bask in the sun.

A few days after Newton went in front of the legislature to attack solar policies, Duke Energy’s Facebook and Twitter feeds started bragging, amazingly, about North Carolina’s solar growth:

It’s not the only public display of support for solar power Duke has shown in recent months. Previous CEO Jim Rogers said that he saw rooftop solar as an opportunity as much as a threat, and in March, Duke bought a stake of a distributed solar power financing company, Clean Power Finance.

Were these moves signs that Duke is embracing the solar revolution, or just greenwashing? Both answers may be true: Duke is feeling its way around the edges of solar opportunities while it mostly stalls for time by attacking net metering. One thing that would hasten Duke’s solar transition is if it loses on net metering, since that would force the company to more quickly come to terms with the inevitability of rooftop solar.

A Duke loss on net metering is far from a given, considering Duke and ALEC’s almost unlimited influence in North Carolina politics. But for all of Duke’s money and political power, it can’t change a simple reality: Rooftop solar is immensely popular. A 2013 poll showed that 88 percent of North Carolinians support solar energy. Last year, when ALEC attacked North Carolina’s renewable energy law, the effort failed because Republicans in the legislature recognized solar power as a job creator. In fact, ALEC’s efforts to attack renewable energy laws failed in every state where it tried in 2013.

Now, solar advocates will gear up to bat away the next attack wave in 2014. The sooner they win, the sooner utilities like Duke will have to face the music and realize that they need to join their customers in the sun.Visit EcoWatch’s RENEWABLES page for more related news on this topic.

http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/22/largest-power-company-alec-solar/Agelbert NOTE: This is just one more example of uncompetitive fossil fuel corporations constantly gaming the energy playing field to make Renewable energy, which is CHEAPER, as well as being clean, appear more expensive than the PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE (without subsidies and corruption) FOSSIL FUELS! CROOKED BASTARDS!

The fossil fuels industry and their lobbyists are always telling us that we can't afford not to use their dirty energy. Fossil fuels are abundant and cheap, they say. Renewables can't do the job, they argue, and switching to them would cripple our economy. But it's all a Dirty Lie.

Greenpeace: Don't believe the dirty lie It's time we started pushing back. The Dirty Lie is constantly repeated by coal and oil industry lobbyists and their friends in Congress. We need your help to call out the Dirty Lie whenever and wherever we find it.

How can you help call out the Dirty Lie?

When you come across the Dirty Lie being repeated without challenge, report it to us via Facebook, Twitter, or Delicious. In turn, we'll let you know how you can help call out the worst offenders. Get the full scoop here: How you can help call out the Dirty Lie.

We put together a factsheet to help you recognize the Dirty Lie when you see it. You can view the factsheet below, or right-click this link and choose "Save Link As" to download the PDF: Dirty Lie Factsheet.

How do we know it's a Dirty Lie?

We teamed up with more than 30 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes, and the renewable energy industry to create our new report, Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable USA Energy Outlook. The report lays down a blueprint for how we ensure our emissions peak by 2015, as the Nobel prize-winning IPCC says they must if we’re to avoid runaway global warming, while phasing out nuclear and fossil fuel energy. It also shows how we can provide about 96% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2050, growing our economy and creating 1.1 million jobs in the renewables sector alone by 2030 in the process.

Dirty Lie Factsheet

Published by Greenpeace

We’ve all heard the arguments from Big Oil and King Coal: “Without coal and oil, energy and gas prices would go through the roof;” or “We have to use domestic coal and oil reserves to ensure our energy security;” and “Renewables can’t do the job, so we have to keep using fossil fuels.”

That’s the Dirty Lie: The idea, heavily promoted by coal and oil industry lobbyists and their friends in Congress, that there is no remedy for our addiction to fossil fuels. But the truth is that with today’s technology, we can continue to grow our economy while phasing out fossil fuels altogether.

Dirty Lie #1: Oil and coal are cheap and plentiful

Despite wildly volatile price swings, Fossil Fuel companies love to claim that their products are cheap and virtually unlimited. The truth is that they’re only cheap if you don’ t count the billions of dollars paid in cleanup costs from oil spills, the public health costs of water and air pollution, and the lives and livelihoods lost to accidents and illness. And plentiful? Oil and coal companies are using untested technology and taking unprecedented risks to wring out every last ounce of fossil fuel from the ends of the earth, including oil drilling miles under the surface of the ocean.

Dirty Lie #2: Renewables like wind and solar can’t do the job

Greenpeace’s Energy Revolution report lays out a practical path to a virtually coal and oil free economy, while at the same time phasing out ALL of our nuclear plants. On its own, greater energy efficiency can account for the projected increase in our energy demands. A diverse and highly localized combination of things like electric vehicles, small-scale and large-scale wind and solar projects, and smart grids can supply the rest. The truth is, renewable energy can power the US economy, and we can start right now.

Dirty Lie #3: Switching to renewables will hurt the economy

In spite of the global recession that has bottomed out many global industries, renewable energy, and wind in particular, grew by 40% last year. Already, the wind industry employs more people than the coal industry. And recently, our biggest economic competitor—China—surpassed the US as the world’s largest investor in renewable energy. Renewable energy is the key to the 21st century economy, and the longer we are stuck on fossil fuels, the further behind we will be.

Dirty Lie #4: Oil and coal companies are part of the solution

Fossil fuel companies love to tout their “commitment” to the environment and their pursuit of new energy sources. But while they’re spending millions on green washing ad campaigns, many are also spending millions to confuse the public about issues like climate change. Exxon, for example, gave $1.3 million to climate denial organizations last year. And don’t forget that BP has held itself up as“ beyond petroleum” for years.

With more than 7,000 oil and gas wells and 5,500 more already approved, the Eagle Ford shale play in Texas is one of the most active drilling sites in the nation. But according to a new investigation, Texas is failing to adequately monitor the site’s emissions, which is leading to health concerns for nearby residents.

Agelbert NOTE:Do you see how this is DONE? Big Oil uses EXCUSES about environmental "damage" which are NOT TRUE to CASTRATE renewable energy while they continue to dismantle ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS so they can continue to pollute the **** out of the biosphere.

The next time some fence straddling **** tells you it is a "complex subject that requires much study and no hasty conclusions", remember to tell them they are FULL OF ****!

A facilities engineer for Shell is featured in the video below in order to inform us of how swell it is to work for Shell. You know, if you can just block out that whole “destroying the world” thing. Anything for a little money, eh?

Truthfully, this video really stands out to me for how it demonstrates what gets people into this industry — It’s a job. Perhaps even a high-paying job. In an office. For a big company.

40 hours a week helping to bring down human civilization and countless species. What’s not to love?

However, I’ll come back to the crux of the matter: as much as “evil” oil suppliers are to blame, demanders are many more times to blame. Oil companies and simple people like the lady in this video are supplying a demand. If we pull out the demand, there will be no such jobs. Instead, there will be jobs in much cleaner bike, electric car, and public transit industries.

If you are opposed to destroying society and/or countless species, stop driving gasmobiles and go solar!

... the so-called customers that feed the fossil fuel burning greedballs at the top have been continuously forced out of green alternatives by the fossil fuel 'bought- and-paid-fors' in government.

I have written extensively about how Big Oil has engineered (for about 100 years!) tax payer rip offs called "subsidies", fake oil shortages for profit and wars.

Throughout this period, Big Oil gamed the energy market and consumer choices starting with Prohibition (No, it was not about booze; it was about making ethanol illegal so Rockefeller could corner the fuel market!) and extending through the 1980s when solar and wind renewable energy were crushed in their infancy.

Hand in hand with all this corruption and propaganda that fossil fuels were "Cheaper" , came the "new ice age" baloney.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr: "In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other. And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves. If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other."

It seems that whatever the issue is, the Koch Brothers are there, even ones you wouldn't expect them to be interested in - like GMO agriculture or health care.

Given that their fortune comes from oil and chemicals, it's understandable that they would be against mass transit and the growth of renewable energy.

We're pointing this out because they are going further than any individuals have gone, literally building out their own national campaign infrastructure with hundreds of employees across 32 states so far. In the first four months of 2014, they have already spent over $30 million on the mid-term campaigns.

They launched the Tea Party with their funds.

The Koch Brothers are worth $80 billion, adding $12 billion to their wealth last year, according to Forbes Magazine. They own the second biggest private company in the US and are among the largest tar sands oil owners. Koch tar sands acreage

"But that's not good enough for them, says Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who would give Americans a real progressive choice if he decides to run for President in 2016. "It doesn't appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process."

In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate, giving us insight into what his overall goals are.

He would repeal and abolish just about everything the government does. Read this incredibly long list:

•Abolish Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, calling the latter a "fraudulent and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. After repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary;

•"We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services."

•Deregulate the medical insurance industry

•Abolish the US Postal Service and turn it over to the private sector.

•"We oppose all personal and corporate income taxes, including capital gains taxes, and support the eventual repeal of all taxes." Until then, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.

•Repeal minimum wage laws

•"We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Public schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with individual free choice. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We condemn compulsory education laws."

•"We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for privatization of public roads and the national highway system."

•"We specifically oppose laws that require people to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets."

•End all tax credits that have to with raising children, and all welfare and tax-supported services for children.

•"We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor' programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals."

•"We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households."

•"We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act."

•"We support the repeal of all state usury laws."

"These are the people who pull the strings for Republican Party and because of the disastrous Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions, they can now spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States," says Sanders.

They are also working on state and local levels, but that still isn't enough - they are also influencing what's taught in our schools, from grade school through college.

Presente.org and The Other 98% premiered an advertisement in the Charlotte, NC and Orlando, FL markets May 1 highlighting Duke Energy’s campaign to put a halt to solar energy, as well as the damage done by the company’s coal ash spill in the Dan River in February. It sarcastically mocks the company with an upbeat narrator declaring that the company makes some of the “dirtiest power.”

The advocacy groups chose to air the ad on the same day as Duke’s annual shareholder meeting.

Duke is the largest electric power holding company in the U.S. That’s why Presente, The Other 98% and groups like the Sierra Club, 350.0rg, Sachamama and the League of Conservation Voters are encouraging people to sign a petition to tell the company to end its dirty pollution. The groups charge that communities that consists of minorities are the ones that bear the brunt of dirty energy, though they would benefit most from the expansion of renewable energy.